on Fri Dec 16 2011, "Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr." <jeffrey.hellrung-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 4:28 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> wrote:
Are there any plans to propose Boost Iterator for TR2?
I have no plans, and it really wouldn't be appropriate in its current form. It needs a thorough going-over and probably a few design changes before it would be ready for another attempt at standardization. The standards proposals were determined to be not fully-baked enough when we submitted them the last time.
I wonder, Dave, when you get a chance, if you can elaborate on this.
There are a number of issues I can think of just off the top of my head. The rest are probably evident from looking at Trac tickets: * The concepts are wrong, in an abstract sense. They're too granular and not based on the needs of real algorithms. C++11 either got or was about-to-get-before-concepts-were-pulled new iterator concepts that should be used * There's an adaptability hook that Robert Ramey has wanted for years and I think it should be implemented * C++11 features should be exploited in any new design, especially if it's going to be proposed for TR2 * I think maybe we don't yet understand how to specify a component as flexible and default-heavy as iterator_facade at a level of rigor that's appropriate for the standard. It may be that the defaults should be computed much more simply than they are. HTH, -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com